undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmc-lovin13y ago0 comments

The funny thing is, I never considered when I posted that that there would be violence beyond the usual getting in your face that I've seen at left wing protests.

Why does the fact that these people are upset make their cause any more just? Why do my rights (and more importantly the rights of any tech employees who might happen to pass through there) end where their feelings begin?

Also, how sympathetic would you feel towards a Black man who "antagonized" white people by passing through a White neighborhood, and was attacked by Whites who were already upset by the civil rights movement.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

vacri13y ago· 2 in thread

Please stop with the libertarian slogans. It's not about ending your rights or those of the passersby. It's about a set of people being upset, and you wishing you were there - willing to go out of your way - to upset them further.

These people are upset with change. Hard luck to them, I never said their cause was just. But you antagonising them has nothing to do with anything but your own amusement. I wouldn't condone physical violence for you wearing a particular sweater - and if you notice, I never suggested that I did. I merely used your high-horse dismissive language against you: I would be unsympathetic to you should you run into trouble. If you went out of your way to antagonise aggressive, upset people just for your own jollies, I'm not going to coddle you and say "there there, poor guy, those mean protesters".

If a kid sticks a knife into a power socket and gets seriously hurt, I'll be sympathetic. But if an adult does a Jackass-style "won't this be fun!" version and gets seriously hurt, no, I won't be sympathetic. I'll call an ambulance and apply first aid, but why should I care how that adult feels because they got hurt knowingly doing something stupid?

Also, how sympathetic would you feel towards a Black man who "antagonized" white people by passing through a White neighborhood

"I wish I knew about this [so I could go and antagonise them]" is not merely 'passing through'.

mc-lovinOP13y ago

You misunderstood my use of the term "unsympathetic".

I meant it in the sense of being unsympathetic towards an opinion (the opinion that there is something unjust about gentrification) not towards the alleged victims of gentrification.

My aim is to express an opinion: That tech workers have a right to live where they want to, and that it's not the right of the local community, or people claiming to represent them, to stop them living where they choose to and frequenting the businesses they choose to.

Now this might be upsetting to people who think of themselves as victims of gentrification, but I didn't formulate this viewpoint for the purpose of upsetting them. If I have to change my viewpoint, or choose not to express it, because someone finds it upsetting, then that is not freedom of speech.

So unless you think that people should be forced to curtail their speech and keep their opinions to themselves, whenever that opinion is offensive to someone who has (or feels they have) suffered some ill fortune, you should stop comparing what I proposed to do with willfully inciting violence towards myself.

caseydurfee13y ago

"If I have to change my viewpoint, or choose not to express it, because someone finds it upsetting, then that is not freedom of speech."

I don't think you really understand that "freedom of speech" refers to the actions of the government. It has nothing to do with what private citizens do in response to what you say. The first amendment doesn't protect you from blowback and it's not supposed to. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

However if you consider freedom of speech an issue between citizens, wouldn't the right to bear arms be the greatest enemy of freedom of speech? Seems like "an armed society is a polite society" is a recipe for a society where nobody speaks their mind for fear of losing their life...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse